• Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 month ago

    They don’t care. The purpose wasn’t to charge them, since the powers-that-be already know that protesting isn’t a crime.

    The purpose was to get them off the scene. It doesn’t matter that the charges are automatically dropped, what matters is that they drag the protesters away in that moment.

    • ivanafterall@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 month ago

      And to deter others thinking of protesting. “You can’t do this, see?” Historically, that usually works, right? People just settle down and go home?

    • nbailey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 month ago

      As long as there’s no consequences for this kind of Pinkerton shit, it’s only going to get worse.

    • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Why isn’t the very act of disturbing their protest by violence unconstitutional? (Edit: unless the protesters are infringing somebody’s right to property ofc)

  • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    Dropped charges don’t necessarily mean that the records have been cleared. These 57 demonstrators may have an arrest on record for the rest of their lives. They’ll have to explain that while trying to rent a house, get a job, or any other number of things.